Through this webpage, I am asking the FBI to find out who altered the repair records during the Formal Complaint to conceal that a cable pair that provided service to my business phone number was found to be defective on January 30, 2001. Federal Law requires the phone company to maintain accurate repair records in the LMOS (Loop Maintenance Operations System) See:
LMOS COSMOS.

On January 30, 2001, I observed the phone company technician isolate the cable pair from my premises, and connect an analog meter to the cable pair in the street. As the needle on the meter moved around, the technician told me the line was defective. And I must say, it took a bit of persuasion to get the technician to do the testing.

I spoke to AT&T about the trouble, and AT&T verbally told me that Pacific Bell said the cable pair was defective, and switched to another pair. AT&T promised to credit my account for the recurring problems on my phone line, but AT&T refused to state, in writing (as required by law), what the adjustments were for. A letter from AT&T to the FCC (on behalf of my Congresswoman), provides an explanation for the adjustments.
July 27, 2001

In Pacific Bell's
Answer to my Complaint, dated
August 31, 2001 page 6, Pacific agreed that the cable pair was found to be defective:

"On January 30, 2001, pursuant to AT&T's request, Pacific dispatched a technician to Complainant's location and determined that there was a defective F2 cable pair providing service to Complainant. Pacific avers that it switched the service to a different F2 cable pair on January 30, 2001 and has not received any subsequent trouble reports related to Complainant's telephone service for (925)846-3642."

All of the above documentation from AT&T, Pacific Bell, the CPUC, and the FCC, acknowledges that the cable pair was found to be defective.

The document shown above, provided by Pacific Bell in written Testimony and dated 05/22/02, proves that the repair records for the date of 1/30/01 were altered during the Formal Complaint. Altering records during the Formal Complaint is obstruction of justice, and is within FBI jurisdiction. See: FBI webpage on Corporate Frauds.

…This difference appears to have been the result of SBC California having had more time to thoroughly investigate this trouble ticket in the 10 months between the filing of SBC's Answer and Mr. Alex's Testimony…

According to the Qwest Communications website , repair records have to be accurate for PUC data gathering.
The Judge's Decision stated it did not matter that repair records had been altered -- claiming it was irrelevant. Only a corrupt Judge would make the following statement about altered repair records:

Although Pacific states it did not find a problem, on January 30, 2001 Pacific did replace the cable pair it had provided to Complainant in 1996. Because Pacific did repair the line and because Complainant no longer experiences problems with that line, the disagreement on whether or not there was a problem is irrelevant.

It should be noted that the altered repair records that occurred during the Formal Complaint are same type of problems I complained about in the informal complaint I filed in March 1997, and which caused Rule 11 to be imposed upon me in April 1997. (See documentation of altered records in 1996 on
Mike and Pacific Bell) . The Judge discussed other problems with the records dating back to 1996, but in the end, the Judge found nothing wrong with altering records:

Complainant's and Pacific's records differ slightly concerning the extent of Complainant's reported service quality problems from late 1996 through 1997. (Exhibit 1, various attachments, and Exhibit 3, Attachment 2.) Pacific relies on trouble reports, and Complainant relies on correspondence with Pacific and AT&T, among other documentation. For example, AT&T issued a credit for a September 17, 1997 trouble report (Exhibit 1, Attachment 11), but Pacific does not list that report. Complainant also states that he reported a service outage to a Pacific supervisor on October 29, 1996. Pacific has no record of that report, although Complainant states Pacific made repairs on November 6, 1996. (Exhibit 1, p. 8.) Despite these discrepancies, replacement of a Digital Added Main Line (DAML), illustrates that there were ongoing problems in the second half of 1996.

The document noted above has the "TH-KEY=10-29-96." This is proof that repair records had been altered by Pacific Bell to conceal the trouble on 10-29-96. Again, another violation to conceal recurring problems.

The Judge also acknowledged that AT&T documents showed my business phone line (which received service from Pacific Bell) could not be used to run credit card transactions. The AT&T technician also noted my residential phone line (which received service through residential broadband service), could be used to run the credit card machine November 16 , 2000 . The Judge ruled that since Pacific Bell said the business line was ok (while AT&T said it was not), it did not matter what I said, or what AT&T said:

Pacific and Complainant disagree as to whether trouble was found on one business line when Complainant reported problems in late 2000. Complainant relies on the AT&T technician's report that stated Complainant's credit card did not work on that line. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 16.) ... Pacific states it did not find a problem...

Back to the Altered repair records that occurred during the Complaint:

The only intelligent reason for someone at Pacific Bell to "thoroughly investigate" the trouble ticket, and then alter the repair records for the date of 01/30/01, is to provide an explanation as to why the defective cable pair was not placed on the log of defective cable pairs, as required by law.

THE LOG OF DEFECTIVE, AND MISSING, CABLE PAIRS

The photograph shown above provides evidence that the cable pair that was found to be defective on January 30, 2001, was not placed on the log of defective cable pairs, as required by law.

Even though the log of defective cable pairs is two pages, and I was only able to photograph page 2, the fact that Pacific Bell altered records for the work performed on Jan. 30, 2001, provides evidence that the cable pair was not put on the log of defective cable pairs. There is no other "logical" explanation for altering the records to claim the cable pair was not defective.

Through this webpage, I am asking the FBI to find the details of the "investigation" that Pacific Bell alleged had taken place sometime between the filing of Pacific Bell/SBC's Answer, and Mr. Alex's Testimony.

The investigation should determine:

the name of the person in charge of the investigation

if the "investigation" was linked to the Formal Complaint (obstruction of justice) or was "normal" company policy (simple fraud) that has been going on since 1996, when Pacific Bell began using cable pair 1118 to my premises, and altering records to conceal recurring problems

the details of how Pacific Bell could determine the cable pair was not defective

the specific dates the investigation took place

if the "he/she" technician at my premises on Jan. 30, 2001 was contacted by phone company officials during the alleged investigation

If no investigation took place, as Stephanie Krapf alleged, the FBI needs to determine who altered the records. Federal Laws require the phone company to be able to identify who did the repair work, and therefore, who would alter the repair records. See:
LMOS COSMOS. ALTERED RECORDS and Violations to law

In regards to the Mike Knell issue currently before the CPUC. ... From July [1996] through October [1996], Mr. Knell called Pacific Bell repair service 5 times however upon dispatching technicians each time, we only found actual physical trouble on his line three times...

ANOTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR ALTERING RECORDS DURING THE COMPLAINT, AND A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

There is an "illogical" reason for altering the repair records — it has to do with Rule 11 being wrongfully imposed upon me after I complained to the Commission in March 1997.

The letter written by Rick Resnick used to impose Rule 11 upon me claims there has never been a service problem on my phone lines since the DAML was removed in November 1996. A person who wrongfully invoked Rule 11 upon me to conceal problems in the infrastructure may have panicked, and altered the records during the Complaint.

The person with a pattern of "panicking," altering records, and telling lies to conceal problems in the infrastructure is Rick Resnick. In 1996 he offered me $2000.

When Mr. Resnick offered me $2000 on
November 22, 1996 , he stated the buried drop was not defective (the two-pair buried service wire was on Pacific Bell's side of the Demarcation point, therefore, if the cable pair was defective, Pacific Bell would be required to pay for the repairs).

On February 26, 1997 Mr. Resnick claimed the 2-pair buried drop under my driveway was found to be the cause of the recurring service problems. When I asked to record Mr. Resnick, he panicked and hung-up, and followed up with the fax February 26, 1997. On March 7, 1998 a contractor hired by AT&T stated the 2-pair buried drop tested ok.

In October 2001, I notified Rick Resnick that there was a cable failure on my business fax line in January 2001. I received a letter from the legal department, telling me not to contact Rick Resnick -- thereby proving, that Rick Resnick got my message. This may explain why the Attorney stated:

…This difference appears to have been the result of SBC California having had more time to thoroughly investigate this trouble ticket in the 10 months between the filing of SBC's Answer and Mr. Alex's Testimony…

I believe Rick Resnick Altered the Records. He had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to alter the records for the date of January 30, 2001 during the Formal Complaint. The time line fits, as does the pattern of behavior. Furthermore, this is an example of consciousness of guilt (that has gone on for many years).

Rick Resnick is now president of AT&T Mexico.

Altered records after the Formal Complaint

After the Formal Complaint, AT&T continued to alter repair records to conceal three more cable failures on my business phone line.

And this document confirms that my business phone line (cable pair 1103) was on the log of defective cable pairs. Considering that AT&T claims to have no record of repair work for my business phone line after the Formal Complaint, this means AT&T was knowinlgy using a defective phone line to my business.